Modernleştirici Devrimlerde Geçici Mimarlık Ve 1930'larda Türkiye Örneği

Abstract

30 ' lu yılların, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti ' nin mimarlık tarihindeki özel yeri mimarlığın bu dönemde üstlendiği yoğun ideolojik yüke dayanır. 30 'lu yılların başlarında devrimci devletin her alandaki yaptırımının artmasıyla başlayıp 40 'lı yıllara gelindiğinde devrimin artık tamamlanmış olarak kabul edilmesiyle sona eren bu tepeden tırnağa 'devrimci' dönemin mimarlığı da devrimin iç çelişkilerini ve tartışmalarını yansıtır. Devrimin ideolojisi ve dönemin mimarlığı arasındaki bu sıkı ilişki o dönemde mimarlığın varolduğu çevrenin devrimci elitlerin sınırları içinde kalmasına dayanır. Bu tez 1930 'lu yıllarda Türkiye'de üretilmiş olan, özellikle sivil mimarlık ürünlerinin dönemin yayınlarının taranması yoluyla saptanmasını hedefleyen bir ön çalışmanın oluşturduğu fikre dayanıyor. Sözkonusu tarama sırasında sergi pavyonları, sergi düzenlemeleri ve bayram takları gibi bazı geçici mimarlık ürünlerinin çok nitelikli olduğu dikkati çekmiştir. Bu eserler propaganda işlevli oldukları için, dönemin ideolojik geriliminin de korporal ifadesi gibidirler. Aslında sözkonusu dönemde mimarlık tümüyle ideolojik bir bağlamda ele alınmıştır. Ama geçici ürünlerin ayrıca, hem deneyselliğe yatkmlıklarıyla, hem de eski, durağan ve kalıcı olanın karşısına yeni, devingen ve geçici olanı koyan tepkisel ve eleştirel bir tavrın ifadesine olanak tanımalarıyla, tüm avangard hareketlerde önemli bir rolü vardır. Bu olgu gözönünde bulundurularak, sözkonusu geçici mimarlık ürünlerinin modernleştirici devrim ideolojisi ile bağlantılı olarak incelenmesinin ilginç sonuçlar getireceği kanısına varılmıştır. Yapılan çalışmanın ortaya koyulmasında öncelikle modernizm kavramı ve Modern Mimarlık Hareketi' nin dünyayı değiştirme iddiası üzerinde durulmuştur. Modernleştirici devrim ideolojisinin içerdiği yönelişler ve ikilemlere ve bu arada Batı dışına özgü modernleştirici devrimlerin pratikteki biçimlenmesiyle Avrupa faşizminin paralellik ve farklarına değinilmiştir. Bu çerçeve içinde geçici mimarlığın nasıl biçimlendiği, seçilmiş fotoğraflarla da desteklenerek incelenmiştir. Türk devriminin ideolojisinin ve içerdiği ikilemlerin anlaşılır kılınması amacıyla devrimin 19. yüzyıla uzanan teorik altyapısı ve sıkı ilişki içinde olduğu ekonomik olgular ortaya koyulmuştur. 1930' lara gelindiğinde devrimin başlıca ideolojik problemlerinin olgunlaşarak dönemin mimarlığına nasıl yansıdığı gösterilmeye çalışılmıştır. Bu bağlamda, fotoğraflı kaynaklardan derlenen geçici mimarlık örneklerine dayanarak, devrimin temel ideolojik problemi olan kimlik arayışının bu ürünlerde nasıl ifade bulduğu incelenmiştir. Derlenen örnekler ağırlıklı olarak 30" lu yıllardan olmakla birlikte 19. yüzyılın ikinci yarısından başlar. Böylece geçici mimarlığı üreten devrimsel sürecin tüm aşamalarıyla kavranabileceği düşünülmüştür.

Ephemeral Architecture in the Modernizing Revolutions and the Case of Turkey in the 1930s The distinction of the 1930s in the architectural history of the Turkish Republic is due to the ideological load that was shouldered by architecture. Beginning with the increase in the etatist behavior of the revolutionary government in the early 30s and coming to an end with the revolution being regarded as completed early in the 40s, this was a 'revolutionary' period from head to toe. The entire architecture of this period reflects the internal contradictions and discussions of the revolution. This strict connection between revolutionary ideology and the architecture of the 30s is due to the fact that in that period the circle in which architecture existed (the circle which produced, bought, criticised, discussed architecture), was limited within the borders of the revolutionary elites. The architecture of the 30s reflects the two following ideological problems most prominently: 1- The intellegentsia that plan£ the modernizing revolutions basically aiire> a total enlightenment and regards industrialization as an instrument towards this aim. Revolutionary governments come to power to realize the aims of the intellegentsia. However, they focus on independent industrialization which is the first obligatory step and may intrumantalize the institutions that theoretically should be leading to a far-reaching enlightenment. Essentially, the idea of an enlightenment being realized by the state is extremely paradoxical. Therefore, the revolutionary governments ' idea of enlightenment is always much more superficial than the revolutionary intellectuals'. This superficiality is unavoidable in the practice of modernizing revolutions, because these revolutions are attempts of an etatist 'short-cut modernization' specific to societies that have been left behind in the industrialization process, thus the Enlightenment process in the West. -xi- In the case of Turkey, consideration should be given on the fact that an Ottoman modernizing theory existed from the first half of the 19th century and that the identity of the intellectual was closely related to that theory. The revolutionary elites that had its roots in that theory obtained political power step by step through a political revolutionary process from 1908 to 1923. Therefore, the common point of view (which is a mostly official point of view) that claims that modern art and literature developed thanks to the revolutionary government of the Republican (Cumhuriyet) era, doesn't reflect the complete truth. What's more, the Republican state owes its existence to the revolutionary theory that flourished within the 19th century circles of Ottoman literature. The superficiality of the modernism of the revolutionary state in comparison to the more profound modernism of the modernizing intellectuals can be observed in architecture, too. Looking back at the architecture of the 1930s in Turkey, it becomes obvious that the buildings that most prominently reflect modernism are civil buildings, while the greatest official buildings erected by the state (most of which were designed by foreign architects) don't reflect as modernizt claims. The state did not take up the profound critical approach and the revolutionary claim which are at the core of modern architecture, but instead only its 'totally new' (rejecting the old) and 'rationalist' (secular) image. The theoretical background of modern architecture where a new type of society was planned, was more effective in civil architecture. Still, there were not two totally different architectural approaches present. The difference was only a difference in profundity (/superficiality). Basically, the common choice of the architects and the state was towards modern architecture. 2- The development of the revolutionary theory in pre- revolutionary Ottoman Empire had been parallel to the formation of a national conciousness. Further in the post- revolutionary period, ' Turkish 'ness was stressed increasingly by the revolutionary elites in order to generate a secular identity. As a result, on the one hand the question of defining a secular and Turkish identity, and on the other hand the question of defining a Turkish, i.e. extremely local revolutionary identity, were the two basic ideological problems of the revolution. These two questions actually never found a true answer, quite naturally, because (1) national identity in the late Ottoman period had developed in a religious context and (2) modernizing revolutions theoretically aim universalisation. -xii- The architectural discussions of the 30s in Turkey focused on a search for "a national revolutionary architecture" (milli bir inkılap mimarisi). This search was defined by the permanent dispute of two paradigmatic approaches, namely modern architecture on the one hand, and nationalism on the other. The architectural theory of that period developed around the search for a local character within the limits of modern architecture. limits The main idea of this thesis arose from a preceding study aiming the collection of architectural works of the 30s in Turkey, by scanning -mostly periodical- publications of that period. Through that scanning process, some ephemeral works of architecture, e.g. exhibition pavillions, festive gates and decorations, drew the attention with their high architectural quality. Thanks to their propaganda function, these works seem to be the corporal expression of the ideological tension which I tried to define above. (It should be taken into account that in that period of etatist economy, the ideological dimension of commercial exhibitions, too, was prominent.) Actually, in that period, architecture as a whole was being considered in an ideological context. However, ephemeral architecture seems to deserve being emphasized for the following: by being appropriate for experimental approaches and by offering expression to a critical/reactionary mode that replaces the old, static and permanent with the new, dynamic and temporary, ephemeral works have an important role in the avant-garde movements (e.g. the theatre at Bauhaus, demonstrations of the Dada movements, mass festivals of the Russian avant-garde etc.). Considering this fact, it has been assumed that a study of the ephemeral works of architecture mentioned above, in relation with the modernizing revolutionary ideology, might lead to interesting results. plan Presenting the study that was made, primarily the concept of modernism has been discussed, and the claim for changing the world by the Modern Movement in architecture has been stressed. The directions and dilemmas of the modernizing revolutionary ideology and by the way, the parallelities and differences between the practice of modernizing revolutions and European faschism, have been mentioned. The formation of architecture, especially ephemeral architecture within this general frame has been analysed with the support of selected visual material. To make comprehensible the dilemmas that are intrinsic to the ideology of the Turkish revolution, the theoretical -xxix- background and related economic circumstances, stretching back to the early 19th century, have been presented. It has been then discussed how in the 1930s the century-long development of basic ideological problems were reflected in architecture. In this context, with the help of collected photographs of ephemeral works, it has been analysed how the revolution's search for an identity found an expression in ephemeral architecture. A great majority of the collected examples are of the 1930s; however, they start from the second half of the 19th century. Thus, the comprehension of the entire revolutionary process has been aimed, with a particular stress on the 1930s. The plan of the study is as follows: -Introduction. Revolutionary Claims of the Modern Movement in Architecture -1st Chapter. Ephemeral Architecture in Modernizing Revolutions 1.1. Common Dilemmas of Modernizing Revolutions 1.1.1. Fascism 1.1.2. Nation 1.1.3. Communism 1.2. Temporariness in Revolutionary Architecture 1.2.1. Search for an ideal Order-ideal City 1.2.2. The World Exhibitions 1.2.3. Temporariness in the Avant-garde 1.2.4. The Russian Avant-Garde 1.2.5. The Contradictory Relationship of Fascism and the Avant-Garde 1.2.6. Modern Movement in Mexico and Brasil -2nd Chapter. Economic and Ideological Phenomena That Define the Architectural Milieu of the 1930s in Turkey 2.1. The Economic Structure and the State 2.1.1. Economic Dependency in the Late Ottoman Period 2.1.2. The Period of Liberal Economy after the War of Independency 2.1.3. Etatist Economy 2.2. The Revolution and the Ideological Background 2.2.1. Revolutionary Dilemmas 2.2.2. National Identity, Nationalism, the Nation- State -3rd Chapter. Works of Ephemeral Architecture in the 1930s in Turkey 3.1. Modern Art Movements in Turkey 3.1.1. The Impact of the Military Schools on the Modernization in Arts 3.1.2. Sanayi -i Ne fi se 3.1.3. The Generation of 1914 and the First Artists' Communities 3.1.4. Müstakiller (Independents) and the "D" Group -xxv- 3.1.5. The Reflection of the Ideological Milieu of the 1930s on Arts 3.2. The Architectural Milieu 3.2.1. The Background of the Evaporation of the First National Style 3.2.2. The Role of the State in the Architectural Activity Throughout the Country 3.2.3. The Reaction to Foreign Architects 3.3. The Search for a Revolutionary Identity in the Works of Ephemeral Architecture -Conclusion. Proposals Towards Comparative Studies on the Architecture of the Turkish Revolution results During the study, the main deficiency was caused by not being able to reach studies on the relation of modernizing revolutions to the universal project of modernization. Whereas, the claim of the Western modernism to modernize the rest of the world, shouldn't be disregarded. The chronological superposition of two phenomena, namely the reign of the Modern Movement, and the period in which most of the modernizing movements in the non-Western world were realized, is obviously not sheer coincidence. Profound and comparative studies (existing or to be made in the future) on this ' coincidence1, can lead to new interpretations on the approaches of modernizing elites to modern architecture, in Turkey or elsewhere. With all the advantages that the early Turkish Republican architecture offers to scholars that choose to look at architectural phenomena through the glasses of other disciplines, thanks to its ideological implications, it is quite surprising that available studies -that I could reach- on this subject are very few. I hope that this thesis, at least, stresses the gap in this area.